Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the preferences of general practitioners (GPs) in reply letters for patients referred for a one-off psychiatric assessment.
Method: A sample of GPs referring to a primary mental health team service were mailed a questionnaire inquiring into the usefulness of 21 different letter items.
Results: The response rate was 51%. Many of the items in our routine reply letters were rated highly, but others such as developmental history, supplementary information and a comprehensive report were not. Sending a copy of the letter to the patient was rated as useful by only 42.5%.
Conclusions: The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists’ guidelines for reply letters are endorsed. There are, however, some additional items that GPs may find useful.
PittermanLKoritsasS. Part II. General practitioner-specialist referral process. Internal Medicine Journal2005; 35: 491–496.
2.
BrittHMillerGCCharlesJBayramC. BEACH – Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health. General Practice Activity in Australia 2006–07. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra2008.
The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. Referred Patient Assessment and Management Plan. Available on request from the RANZCP.
5.
TattersallMHNMonaghanHGriffinAScatchardK. Writing to referring doctors after a new patient consultation. What is wanted and what was contained in letters from one medical oncologist?. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Medicine1995; 25: 479–482.
6.
CampbellBVanslembroekKWhiteheadE. Views of doctors on clinical correspondence: questionnaire survey and audit of content of letters. British Medical Journal2004; 328: 1060–1061.
7.
NewtonJEcclesMHutchinsonA. Communication between general practitioners and consultants: what should their letters contain?. British Medical Journal1992; 304: 821–824.
8.
ZoltieNDe DombalFT. Communication between GPs and consultants. British Medical Journal1992; 304: 1181–1182.
9.
RawalJBarnettPLloydBW. Use of structured letters to improve communication between hospital doctors and general practitioners. British Medical Journal1993; 23: 1044.
10.
PullenIMYellowleesAJ. Is communication improving between general practitioners and psychiatrists. British Medical Journal1985; 290: 31–34.
11.
LeonardIBabbsCCreedF. Psychiatric referrals within the hospital – the communication process. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine1990; 83: 241–244.
12.
KentishRJenkinsPLaskB. Study of written communication between general practitioners and departments of child psychiatry. Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners1987; 37: 162–163.
13.
DeehanATempletonLTaylorCDrummondCStrangJ. The effect of cash and other financial inducements on the response rate of general practitioners in a national postal study. British Journal of General Practice1997; 47: 87–90.
14.
FieldingJClothierHStocksNKellyH. What factors facilitate a GP survey high response rate?. Australian Family Physician2005; 34: 895–896.
15.
GarrickTRStotlandNL. How to write and psychiatric consultation. American Journal of Psychiatry1982; 139: 849–855.
16.
AlexanderTBlochS. The written report in consultation-liaison psychiatry: a proposed schema. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry2002; 36: 251–258.
17.
GrolRRooijackers-LemmersNvan KaathovenL. Communication at the interface: do better referral letters produce better consultant replies?. British Journal of General Practice2003; 53: 217–219.
18.
KanerEFSHaightonCA.McAvoyBR. So much post, so busy with practice – so, no time!’: A telephone survey of general practitioners’ reasons for not participating in postal questionnaire surveys. British Journal of General Practice1998; 48: 1067–1069.
